It appears that most of the "socialists" on here confuses social responsibility and being charitable with being socialist. Socialism is comunism
without money. Capitalism with social responsibility is the only workable system in an unfair world. If it can't work because people are too greedy,
socialism will work even less for the same human flaw. Socialism at it's core is giving the state all controll of resources and commerce. You still
work for a salary, but the government is your employer. Ideology makes the decisions and commercial viability is not required. Accountability is only
an issue during the ellection cycle.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Konduit capitalism requires a surplus in labour, so wages can be controlled, which means there will always be
unemployed people. It's always been that way so it's about how we manage as a society the surplus labour "unemployed" that capitalism requires.
Victorian work houses? Social security or mass poverty?or maybe the good old send people off to fight wars on the behalf of the capitalist

the military is still a function of govt. but when was the last time you voted on a war?

There was a Russian spy who revealed that the plan has always been to undermine capitalism by using social upheaval to incrementally move the
political middle from the center. From what i can tell from history they were doing this until the right of center was considered right wing nut job
for those who followed the false narrative. Basically redefining reality as we see almost daily with the PC media.

Some people want more implementation of social programs and government funding.. But we have that.

You drive on roads, you go to parks I bet, you might even use electricity or the cities water.

What exactly are you arguing? Who exactly are you arguing against? Socialists hardly exist on this site.

I disagree.

Bernie is a socialist, wants socialism. And many here also want socialism.

I thought that was fairly obvious.

Everyone will want socialism, eventually. Well, save perhaps the handful of people who will end up 'owning' the planet. If they don't already.

Propaganda and indoctrination can only go so far. At some point, people will demand socialism. Real hardcore socialism.

And, at that point, the rich will have probably try to commit genocide on the 99% using robots and automated war machines, chemical weapons,
bacteriological weapons etc. They would be the ones controlling all of these, unless the people who will have actually developed, designed and built
all these weapons for them see the light and put in backdoors or otherwise try and sabotage or prevent this.

The labour for income for 99% (all the while being made redundant by machines and software) and lots of money for basically nothing for the 1% system
we have now is primitive, anachronistic and inhumane in today's society. It simply has to go.

History will look back on us as we look back on proponents, advocates and apologists of slavery today. We'll be pointed to as bad examples and
arguably justifiably so. Those of us who are against socialism, at least.

Second of all - Socialism has come to mean a lot of different things. Roads can be called socialist because they are a government program, for
instance - In that aspect, the government does have control over one part of production of one type of service.

The dictionary definition is no longer reliable, we just don't have words for what is practiced, and what is successful in other nations. Switzerland
has free-market and capitalistic elements, as well as a larger government, higher payroll taxes and the like - And likely less corporate loop-holes,
and subsidies. They are not full on socialistic, so what are they? There's no one word to describe them, so Sanders takes on the most common term used
- Socialist.

Insurance (even private, for profit insurance) can be called socialist because it gives to some people more than they put in while giving other people
less.

originally posted by: Annunak1
As long as i can keep working 3/4 days a week. Make me work 5 days a week and i will start a riot! I was not born to work goddammit i was born to
live!

I don't mind you working 3 or 4 days a week. That is 100% fine with me. But the second someone takes my money or takes it from my family after I
work 6 days a week, and gives it to you since you don't earn enough...you become my enemy as much as those to stole the money from me and my
family.

What if they printed the money then gave it to him. Would that be ok?

Because that's exactly how banks finance loans yet I don't see any anti-socialists up in arms about that.

I find the idea of a Government taking care of me a lot like moving in with your parents. There is no way to feel good about yourself when something
like that happens. Also, once the Government starts taking care of you then they own you. Your freedom is gone.

We are already there.
In 2011 some 49.2 percent of U.S. households received benefits from one or more government programs—about 151 million out of an estimated 306.8
million Americans—according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last October.Jul 2, 2014

Yes...but it is far, far worse than that. Not only is it living with your parents, it is the control you end up giving that government. Who are you
going to vote for...the ones who pay for your Netflix or the ones who want to give you a job? And when you live at your parents home, you have to
follow their rules. Not just out of being respectful, but because if you don't they will stop paying your allowance. It is the government taking
from the masses to enslave them, make them conform to their wishes. In brief...it is slavery.

And as I usually do...it is the left that wants this control. Not the right.

Why is work, in and of itself, desirable and why should it be an objective?

Work is a means to an end. Not the objective in and of itself. Otherwise it would make sense to pay some people to dig holes and others to fill them
back in, without actually taking something from the hole or putting something in the hole in between.

If you can devise and build a machine to do 100 people's jobs in a fraction of the time and a fraction of the energy and material cost, why should
those people continue to have to work to be paid exactly the same?

What if they cannot find alternate employment in time? What if it doesn't pay enough for them to live or for them to support their family?

What is society supposed to do with those people? Tell them to go ... themselves?

Do you think that's the way society should be run? Do you think that's sustainable? Do you think having 90% of the population living in abject poverty
because they've been made redundant by machines and software is sustainable, let alone desirable?

Why this constant fixation with someone else, lower than us on the totem pole, getting a leg up or even a modest freebie? When the richest among us
pull in millions each month doing f... all.

Why do people have a problem with someone living below poverty getting a hundred or couple hundred in free food a month but have no problem at all
with people who do f... all raking in millions each month? And sometimes have no problem at all with trillions on warfare and military spending?

How lopsided is that?

No one seems to give a damn banks literally make money from nothing, by charging interest on money they create out of nothing then lend out at
interest.

And since all money is created this way, banks basically, indirectly, print out their own future interest earnings.

I can't help but feel this is the result of strong, decades longs indoctrination to hate or at least despise those poorer than us and deify the
plutocrats, the masters of society.

I can't help but feel this is the result of strong, decades longs indoctrination to hate or at least despise those poorer than us and deify the
plutocrats, the masters of society.

I'm not sure that is the case. It is perhaps simply natural to prefer those who put resources, wealth and opportunity into our shared society as
opposed to those who don't. It is often difficult to distinguish between those down on their luck and the lazy, and it is foolish to think the poor
consists mainly of the former. It isn't the result of indoctrination to be wary of giving the poor resources, it is the result of those who would
consistently take advantage of it with no intent on returning the favour.

Do you see how the check-and-balance argument is nonsense? The aim of socialism is to destroy capitalism. They are not complementary systems.

Bernie Sanders is lying to you.

I would maintain that the aim of social democracies is to placate the masses so they don't outright overthrow capitalism.

Social democracy are concessions made to the working class and poor. Democratic Socialism is probably bigger concessions.

But even if it were true that the aim of socialism were to overthrow capitalism why is that a problem? It's clearly a problem as far as you're
concerned but why should it be a problem for me, for example?

I own no stock in any company. What do I stand to lose? Why should I favour and want to preserve capitalism?

And people wonder why a lot of Americans are concerned about illegal immigration and our industry being sent overseas. When you have 8 million
undocumented workers and every industry sending it's production to China and Mexico, it tends to tip the scales.

Destruction by design. They are literally priming this country for Socialism.

How is that socialism? It sounds to me like maximisation of profit and free trade. Both supposedly attributes of Laissez-faire capitalism.

Are you against Laissez-faire capitalism?

Are you for protectionism and tariffs? That's socialistic.

Are you for restricting the free movement of capital and people? That's socialistic as well.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.